Search form

You are here

we played a sesion and to us it seemed a bit low but it might be becouse of our party composition.3 players.dwarf war domain cleric AC 18dwarf protector fighter AC 17Elf dualist fighter AC 15

or it might be we mainly fought kobolds but we also had a fight just to test vs 5 orcs + 1 orc leader +1 orog

but it felt like the to hit of the monsters was a bit to low so low that usualy only 1 blow per round landed and ane of the fighters could reduce the damage.

so my question is monster to hit to low ?all classes get a minimum of a +2 to hit bonus, but most monsters don't they only get their ability score modifyer.should the to hit of monsters be increased also giving them the same +2 bonus that all classes give to the player characters ?

I thought the monsters with low to hit would be an issue before we played, but it kind of worked out. Since they have low to hit, if you pit the PCs against a few monsters, it will be an easier encounter. Once they start to fight larger groups, 8 or more...then even with low hit points you start to see some real damage begin.

Part of what this iteration is doing is making it so that PCs can actually make it through 4-6 encounters (as long as they are not mobbed by foes) before they feel like they are getting beaten too badly. In my game tonight that definately was the case.

I can forsee major issues concerning the monster's ability to hit characters once high ac armors are the norm for characters at middle and upper levels. Those low level critters they talk about as being viable threats as the players level will need to roll a 20 and add their piddling attack bonuses to even geet close to hitting them, making those "minions" worthless speed bumps if they're even used at all.

I can vividly remember in our AD&D games when the full plate armor apppeared in game. Even monsters that were supposed to be a challenge to the players were useless because they couldn't hit the players. Talk about frustrating.

It's a sad day when an ancient red dragon needs to roll a 20 and add modifiers to hit the cavalier using a two handed sword. Outfitted with a shield there was no way to hit him, none. It's gotten like this in the playtest too, but this time it's because the monsters are unable to hit consistently (or at all).

This is fine for the heroic character crowd, they like cake walks, but some of us want to be afraid of forty orcs in a cavern, or undead creatures that drain our lives from us when they hit us. Right now the only characters in the game that are afraid of the bad guy is the wizard who has nothing to block attacks other than distance from the action and a pathetically short lived shield spell. Without a dedicated defender on wizard sitting duty, he's toast.

This is why I find it so odd that so many people complain about the players being too weak, but that's not something to turn this thread in to.

They did this to try to balance out the monsters with low level players. They wanted damage to be consistent with the weapon they're using, but still allow for level 1 mobs to have at least a decent small group against PC's.

My opinion: Low hit percentages are okay. It balances out well against the lower HPs. It also allows for those Classic Dungeon Crawls (like Caves of Chaos) where creatures have an advantage in numbers.

@Tlantl: I expect we'll see some adjustment at higher levels, but from what I have seen, bonus AC isn't going to be coming in big chunks.

Still, I've actually seen a fighter go down to numerous attacks when he's bottlenecked enemies and been the focus of many attacks. Usually, because they don't save their Expertise Dice for Parry. :P

Aviose has the right of it, if I read it correctly. 12 DEX kobolds should do 1d4+1 with their slings. Because that damage is fairly hurtful at level 1, giving them poor to-hit (+1 for the DEX, nothing else) helps keep them in check.

It felt less fun and less dangerous. Put me in the camp that preferred more hp with higher attack rolls. I do think that toning down the really high hp of the tougher monsters was right but possibly not as much as they did. I won't know until I test those monsters.

I think the monster attack bonuses are just fine; it's the PCs' attack bonuses that I think are too high. I prefer a game in which fewer hits are landed (implying that the armour actually works), but with more dire consequences when an attack does strike home. This playtest packet is almost there--just need to knock a couple points off the PC attack bonuses across the board.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

I think the monster attack bonuses are just fine; it's the PCs' attack bonuses that I think are too high. I prefer a game in which fewer hits are landed (implying that the armour actually works), but with more dire consequences when an attack does strike home. This playtest packet is almost there--just need to knock a couple points off the PC attack bonuses across the board.

Before playing our session, I was really worried about the PCs having +5, +6 and +7 "to hit" while the monsters had -1, +1, +2. But, after playing, I realize that the idea that the PCs could hit may have made them more daring, and it certainly helps to speed up combat.

Like Shade said above, I'm sure they will make some of the higher level monsters have higher "to hit" scores. I'd love to see WoTC give a guide to tuning monsters....make changes to hit points, "to hit" scores (AC can be changed with different armors) for making a "mook" and/or "elite" monster of any monster type. This would give DM a guideline for setting a challenge in the game. During the game, the players don't even have to know. If DM wants to switch the toggle to make a combat more difficult, or easier....he can slide HP up or down on one or more monsters even while the PCs are fighting the critters.

List of no-action attacks.Dynamic vs Static BonusesPhalanx tactics and buildsCrivens! A Pictsies GuideGood
Powers to intentionally miss withMr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticedWay's to fire around cornersCrits: what their really worthRetroactive bonus vs Static bonus.Runepriest handbook & discussion threadHoly Symbols to hang around your neckWays to Gain or Downgrade ActionsList of bonuses to saving throwsThe Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

so my question is monster to hit to low ?all classes get a minimum of a +2 to hit bonus, but most monsters don't they only get their ability score modifyer.should the to hit of monsters be increased also giving them the same +2 bonus that all classes give to the player characters ?

Well... Lets take that +2 and roll it against not the fighters and clerics but the playtest wizard. 9+ with a chance of a one hit KO. A greater than 50% chance to hit seems too HIGH looking at that.

so my question is monster to hit to low ?all classes get a minimum of a +2 to hit bonus, but most monsters don't they only get their ability score modifyer.should the to hit of monsters be increased also giving them the same +2 bonus that all classes give to the player characters ?

Well... Lets take that +2 and roll it against not the fighters and clerics but the playtest wizard. 9+ with a chance of a one hit KO. A greater than 50% chance to hit seems too HIGH looking at that.

yes it could have been our party composition 1 priest 2 fighters.lowest ac 15 from the sex fighter.

he was the onlu onw who got hit during the whole 6 hour sesion of play and when he did get hit his d6 was enough to reduce the damage to insignificant numbers

I think its an artifact of the new player hp totals. If you give the monsters a 60% success rate with a hit, and then keep their damage the same but reduce player hp, you end up with a lot of dead PCs. I really don't like it. It moves the system further in the direction of the tyranny of the d20. It's not really about the tactics being used or what a creature or PC is supposed to be good at, it's about the whims of the d20. What's the point of having stat blocks if the game is essentially say what you want to do and roll a d20, if you roll a 13 or higher you succeed. The GM rules even kind of say this when they tell the DM to not worry about a DC, just eyeball it on whether the roll was high or not.

Right now the game is all about sending waves of monsters at the PC so they have a chance of scoring a hit and PCs not feeling like they are good at something unless they have advantage. As a previous poster said, it's so swingy. I know they want to test the low hp pcs, but what's the point of having low hp if you're only going to be hit once or twice during the day; unless of course you dm rolls hot and murders you with three lucky rolls. Players aren't really punished for poor decisions, they're punished for bad luck.

There's a ton of potential in a bounded accuracy system, I just don't think the way to account for low hp is by screwing with the to hit math. That's the engine the game runs on. That needs to be tight and expandable. Then you could create the feel you want by adjusting other parts of the game. Some players want a more deadly game, keep monster damage the same and lower PC hp. Some want a more granular system of hits increase PC hp or reduce monster hp.

Me I'd much rather have kobolds have say a 60% chance of hitting, and then only do 1 point of damage. What's the point of attempting something you only have a 30 or 40% chance of success at. That's a sign you should be doing something else. I can see why they did it, I just think the game is better served with monster that hit an average PC four out of six times doing a point of damage each time than a monster that only hits one out of six times for six damage.

I also think the game is better served with similar probabilities on both sides of the table. I can understand people liking the feel of older editions, the sense of danger and adventure, but I don't think wonky math is one of the things people are nostalgic for.

I think its an artifact of the new player hp totals. If you give the monsters a 60% success rate with a hit, and then keep their damage the same but reduce player hp, you end up with a lot of dead PCs. I really don't like it. It moves the system further in the direction of the tyranny of the d20. It's not really about the tactics being used or what a creature or PC is supposed to be good at, it's about the whims of the d20. What's the point of having stat blocks if the game is essentially say what you want to do and roll a d20, if you roll a 13 or higher you succeed. The GM rules even kind of say this when they tell the DM to not worry about a DC, just eyeball it on whether the roll was high or not.

Right now the game is all about sending waves of monsters at the PC so they have a chance of scoring a hit and PCs not feeling like they are good at something unless they have advantage. As a previous poster said, it's so swingy. I know they want to test the low hp pcs, but what's the point of having low hp if you're only going to be hit once or twice during the day; unless of course you dm rolls hot and murders you with three lucky rolls. Players aren't really punished for poor decisions, they're punished for bad luck.

There's a ton of potential in a bounded accuracy system, I just don't think the way to account for low hp is by screwing with the to hit math. That's the engine the game runs on. That needs to be tight and expandable. Then you could create the feel you want by adjusting other parts of the game. Some players want a more deadly game, keep monster damage the same and lower PC hp. Some want a more granular system of hits increase PC hp or reduce monster hp.

Me I'd much rather have kobolds have say a 60% chance of hitting, and then only do 1 point of damage. What's the point of attempting something you only have a 30 or 40% chance of success at. That's a sign you should be doing something else. I can see why they did it, I just think the game is better served with monster that hit an average PC four out of six times doing a point of damage each time than a monster that only hits one out of six times for six damage.

I also think the game is better served with similar probabilities on both sides of the table. I can understand people liking the feel of older editions, the sense of danger and adventure, but I don't think wonky math is one of the things people are nostalgic for.

One way to account for this and actually make the early encounters a bit better is to re-equip the monsters. Goblins are as likely to use daggers as maces, imo, since they are stealthy roguish raiders. Give them an appropriate weapon, and watch their damage with that dagger go down. Then you can give them a +2 or so to bring them back up to a 'pc' level (this is still low, but 10% more likely while allowing even most wizards to take a hit and live). If that +2 doesn't seem balanced enough, raise it to a +3, then they are in line with a trained PC in that attack mode (though with low ability scores).

Also, even though the "tactical module" isn't included in this package. Maybe when it is added it will include flanking for +2 to strike (or just add it yourself). Now, all of a sudden, those groups of mooks have a better chance to hit the PCs if they can manage to flank somebody.

I know I plan to include some sort of flanking rule when the game comes out if one isn't included in the core game or a module (flanking is just such a basic tactic that, from my past gaming experience, even relative newbies who have little sense for tactics seem to easily grasp and enjoy the mechanic).

Also, even though the "tactical module" isn't included in this package. Maybe when it is added it will include flanking for +2 to strike (or just add it yourself). Now, all of a sudden, those groups of mooks have a better chance to hit the PCs if they can manage to flank somebody.

I know I plan to include some sort of flanking rule when the game comes out if one isn't included in the core game or a module (flanking is just such a basic tactic that, from my past gaming experience, even relative newbies who have little sense for tactics seem to easily grasp and enjoy the mechanic).

I tend to give advantage if they are flanking, but I don't pay a LOT of attention to positioning, and have been looking at revising it since that makes rogues far higher DPS in melee then they are without it.

Also, even though the "tactical module" isn't included in this package. Maybe when it is added it will include flanking for +2 to strike (or just add it yourself). Now, all of a sudden, those groups of mooks have a better chance to hit the PCs if they can manage to flank somebody.

I know I plan to include some sort of flanking rule when the game comes out if one isn't included in the core game or a module (flanking is just such a basic tactic that, from my past gaming experience, even relative newbies who have little sense for tactics seem to easily grasp and enjoy the mechanic).

I tend to give advantage if they are flanking, but I don't pay a LOT of attention to positioning, and have been looking at revising it since that makes rogues far higher DPS in melee then they are without it.

Yeah, I think giving out advantage for flanking is a bit too much (especially for Rogues). Whereas I think a +2 feels just right...Encouraging a bit of tactical thought ("Don't let them surround you!") without slowing down the game...In fact, it probably speeds up combat in that most of the time PCs (and NPCs) will automatically tend to move into a particular square/area to set up a flanking position instead of having to mull countless lesser tactical pros & cons if the ruleset doesn't reward flanking...

Also, even though the "tactical module" isn't included in this package. Maybe when it is added it will include flanking for +2 to strike (or just add it yourself). Now, all of a sudden, those groups of mooks have a better chance to hit the PCs if they can manage to flank somebody.

I know I plan to include some sort of flanking rule when the game comes out if one isn't included in the core game or a module (flanking is just such a basic tactic that, from my past gaming experience, even relative newbies who have little sense for tactics seem to easily grasp and enjoy the mechanic).